Apologies for the outnumbering, but I would like to revise and extend as well...

Bigdog put a number of arguments back against my original point. The first is perfectly valid - there are many stories that don't get covered. Second, the UK tax increase point is not as clear as Doug says it is, the richest person in the UK did not leave for example. Third would be defects in the coverage of others, such as Fox News.

The Foreign Policy piece is interesting, though they are one more outlet that missed the UK-no-new-revenues-from-taxing-the-rich story, even while they write about missed stories. Tax policy isn't foreign policy directly, but the foundation of a successful foreign policy is economic health and strength at home IMO. Our deficit, our recession/stagnation, our growing culture of dependency and non-productiveness, and our policies at home that result in an anti-business climate yielding a record low rate of new business startups undermine our foreign policy capabilities and influence.

There is no reason to trivialize any of these. The analogy though to me would be if a newspaper like the NY Times, LA Times, or Washington Post were writing and placing stories on the front page day after day about Guinea worm disease, and it was crucial to the survival of our country, but they had neglected to tell us it was cured. The publications are covering the tax increase on the rich story incessantly, but they are not telling us crucial details such as that when it was tried in the UK just one year ago it brought in NO NEW REVENUE.

The J.K. Rowling argument, micro vs. macro, to me is like refuting global warming by pointing out one cold day in Minneapolis. J.K. Rowling may have a host of personal reasons to stay or she may have moved her investments out of the U.K. for all we know. The story says that 6000 people still reported income over a million GBP, not that everyone left or has the ability to leave. This is not a story a wealth tax, where she leads Great Britain; it is a story about an income tax rate that yielded no new revenue. I don't think she released a major title during that year. My income from selling or renting MN properties does not leave the state if I leave; maybe her copyrights are parked in the UK, or maybe the bulk of her income has already left. No facts advanced but a nice shiny object! I know nothing about the inner workings of U.K. tax laws. Her business is rather unique. She employs very few people relative to her income, compared to other gazillionaires. I also would doubt that the majority of her books are printed in the U.K.

More important is that 10,000 million-pound incomes disappeared. That doesn't mean the people left; it means those income levels are gone. In a growing economy (and the only way to grow revenues is to grow the economy), that number should have gone up at least a few thousand, not to have the majority of them disappear. It is a HUGE story.

We can argue the merits further on tax issues, but the falsehood is static scoring. President Obama keeps quoting numbers that don't include the FACT that people change their behavior based on changing policies, incentives and disincentives. The Media Issue I introduced is that the media that we consider mainstream will not cover it.

The last time (only time?) I saw an mainstream co-conspirator question liberal-Democratic failed economic theories was one Charlie Gibson asked of candidate Barack Obama back in April of 2008:

GIBSON: You have...said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all...?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3#.UMEts1KIiqk----------------Or try this, has the front page news section of a major publication mentioned ever reported that revenues to the Treasury doubled in the 1980s, from $517 Billion to $1032 Billion while the top rate went from 70% to 28%, or that revenues surged 44% in 4 years from $1.78 Trillion in 2003 to $2.57 Trillion in 2007 under the Bush tax rate cuts now in question. Tax rate cuts did not cause the deficits, did they ever put forward facts to correct the quotes of people claiming they did. If not, why not? They just didn't get to it - like Brazilian immigration or Guinea worm disease? I don't buy it. They were on the topic and omitted the key points. The reason I put forward is mediocrity, bias, agenda and fact hiding.

I don't watch Fox News except one Sunday show they put on broadcast television. Many here find Hannity to be a blowhard. Shows like that admit they are opinion more than news. No doubt Fox misses a lot of stories; maybe their misses show their bias. I heard they cut back Rove and Morris for being idiots and zealots on election night. A good sign. Fox radio news to me is written with similar liberal bias as the other networks. They miss most stories and repeat the same take on the same lead stories hour after hour.

I believe Foreign Policy has this wrong, (while we are at it): The U.S. measures oil reserves differently than every other country. The SEC regulates the use of the term. We have much, much more oil than the data from this chart shows.

Kate Middleton... Just goes to show how stories are mostly market driven to whatever draws people in. The analogy I think would be if you covered her every move day after day after day after day, then learned public knowledge she was pregnant and DIDN'T cover it.

On tax policy they hide the facts, poll on what people learned from distorted coverage, and make the poll result the story. 57% say they want ta hikes on the rich? Did they preface the poll question with the fact that tax rate hikes don't bring in more revenue as just shown in a nearly identical example in one of the most similar economies to the U.S. in the world? No. Not with a story, not in the question.

If so-called mainstream media had balance their market size would potentially double (to include conservatives) but the agenda would fail. The number one cable news network by far competitor Fox might never have gotten off the ground if political balance was already achieved. The WSJ is by far number one in the nation with a third more subscribers than the NY Times and more than 4 times the circulation of the Washington Post. Coincidentally their editorial views are the opposite of most of the rest and fill a conspicuous void in the market.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation

Bigdog, I think that piece makes good points; that's how the story could have read if they weren't afraid to open that door. Reports that said the people left the country were irresponsible, not professional journalism, unless they had looked them up and tracked them down. They didn't; the data gives numbers, not names or addresses.

They point out "forestalling" of income, to move it forward like Obama supporter Costco did with dividends ahead of Obama's dividend tax tripling. What excessive capital gains taxes later will do is backstalling. Never sell. Never capture the gain. Never pay the tax. How then do resources move freely to their most productive use? They don't. It's economic malpractice, if you ask me, unreported malfeasance. Ask Charlie Gibson, the revenue goes down.

The reality is that a huge proportion of the rich showed amazing flexibility and mobility of income on a scale that blows the doors off of all static models and all working economic theories at the CBO, OMB, DNC, NYT, LAT, CBS, WP and the White House Council of Economic Advisers who already said it would throw us into recession. People change behavior quickly to different schemes of taxation and the rich have the most flexibility. More efficient, sadly, is Obama's 2% tax hike (FICA) coming to workers who live paycheck to paycheck.

"By mid- 1955, the country had pulled out of the previous year's recession and gross national product was growing at a rate of 7.6 percent. The boom was so great that the budget for 1956 predicted a surplus of $4.1 billion. With the surges in production and the economy, the 1950s is often recognized as the decade that eliminated poverty for the great majority of Americans" (http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html).

"If there are fewer millionaires in the UK because of economic downturn rather than relocation, the story changes a little. "

Yes, higher tax rates, lower revenues and national recession all correlate. Who knew? I still don't see that as valid reason for the cover up. Someone might take the facts wrong?

Clinton's and Eisenhower's economies competed in a different world, I think you know. The point to this discussion would be, how much revenue did the high tax rates raise? Revenues surged when we removed the 90% rate. Revenues surged when we removed the 70% rate and when we removed the 28% capital gains rate. Britain's economyu surged when they removed the highest tax rates. Hiding income and avoiding taxable income becomes less profitable. JFK had it wrong? Robert Mundell had it wrong: "The level of U.S. taxes has become a drag on economic growth in the United States. "The national economy is being choked by taxes — asphyxiated." http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1559:its-time-to-cut-taxes&catid=46:1997&Itemid=31

One thing you may be forgetting or omitting is bracket creep. With inflation, the rates that applied to no one were applying to more and more people without any real increase in income. Not to mention the impending challenge of foreign competition. Can we take that back to the 50s?

Laffer Curve postulates that no tax revenue will be raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% and that there must be at least one rate where tax revenue would be a non-zero maximum. Other than current CBO scoring, who disagrees with that, in principle? Reagan's first chief economic adviser thinks that tax rates going from 90% to 100% would increase revenues?

The point here on Media Issues remains, why hide such a big story? Because there is more to the story? Then put more in the story. It would put the supply side deniers on the defensive? Then include their interviews in the coverage. The story is more than 2 weeks old and this remarkable occurrence BD posted of massive levels of 'forestalled' income as a reaction to impending, punitive tax rates occurred more than a year ago! The majority of people of whom the tax applied changed their economic behavior in response to the policy change we are now demanding. Where was the media? With heads in sand, hoping no one else would report it either. Mediocrity, bias and agenda, not professionalism, is my humble opinion.

For the purposes of this thread, I think we can limit ourselves to why this story wasn't reported by the pravdas to any noticeable degree. For the genuine tax policy questions of the most recent entries here, I think they will be better recorded for posterity over in the Tax Policy thread.

George Zimmerman sues NBC over Trayvon Martin reportsPosted by Erik Wemple on December 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm

Lawyers for George Zimmerman filed suit today against NBC Universal Media over a well-publicized editing error that portrayed their client in racist terms in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin on a drizzly evening in February.

“NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so to set about the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain,” states the civil complaint in its opening salvo against NBC.

(Also at The Washington Post: Can Zimmerman prevail against NBC?)

NBC’s editing of the 911 audiotape in the Martin case became a public fixation after the media-monitoring Web site NewsBusters.org noted editing oddities on a “Today” show broadcast March 27. Here’s how NBC News portrayed the audiotape:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?Zimmerman: He looks black.

Zimmerman thus didn’t volunteer a racial profile of Martin; he was asked to provide it, a point that the lawsuit makes in colorful fashion: “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create illusions of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.”

The suit against NBC alleges four other instances in which NBC-produced shows aired false and defamatory versions of the same events. Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge in the case.

The botched edits, charges the suit, were far from innocent mistakes: “Defendants pounced on the Zimmerman/Martin matter because they knew this tragedy could be, with proper sensationalizing and manipulation, a racial powderkeg that would result in months, if not years, of topics for their failing news programs, particularly the plummeting ratings for their ailing “Today Show” as well as for the individual defendants to “make their mark” for reporting a [manipulated] story such as this.” Individual defendants are Lilia Luciano and Jeff Burnside, NBC employees involved in early cases of Zimmerman mis-editing.

Following a public uproar over the tape-doctoring, NBC News issued a statement on the matter saying this: “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”

Such contrition didn’t impress the Zimmerman camp. “Only after the defendants’ malicious acts were uncovered and exposed by other media outlets … did defendant NBC ‘apologize’ and terminate some of those in its employ responsible for the yellow journalism identified in this Complaint.” Zimmerman himself never received an apology from the defendants, according to the suit.

The suit doesn’t specify a dollar amount of damages that Zimmerman is seeking. “That’s showmanship,” says James Beasley, the Philadelphia-based lawyer representing Zimmerman in the suit.

Beasley declined to comment on whether he’d already had any discussions with NBC. “I don’t want to talk about that. I can’t talk about that. But let’s just say I don’t think it’s going to get settled.”

On that question, at least, Beasley and NBC appear to agree. When asked about the complaint, NBC Universal issued this statement: “We strongly disagree with the accusations made in the complaint. There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly. We intend to vigorously defend our position in court.”

It has been a banner year for Bill Clinton. The former president delivered a galvanizing speech, deemed by many on the left to lay out the best argument for re-electing President Obama, at the Democratic National Convention. During the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and other GOP hopefuls frequently talked up the Clinton-era economy and the former president's ability to reach across the aisle. The Sunday New York Times ran a front-page story on whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will run for the Oval Office in 2016 -- and it didn't even mention Bill's 1998 impeachment.

When former Arkansas employee Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment, he told and stuck to a gratuitous lie about his sexual relationship with a White House intern. And Hillary Clinton, despite what reporter Jodi Kantor describes as "her activist feminist roots," was his greatest enabler.

The then-first lady blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for independent counsel Ken Starr's "politically motivated" questioning of Monica Lewinsky, even though her husband was the chief architect of Starr's perjury trap.

"Her status is singular but complicated," the Times reported -- "half an ex-presidential partnership," a woman at the peak of power and likely 2016 front-runner. No mention of the I-word.

"You'll never see a story about (President Richard) Nixon that doesn't say he resigned in disgrace," former Reagan speechwriter Ken Khachigian observed. There's a double standard so it's bad form to mention that Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached...."...the Gray Lady [ran] 19 stories, columns and blogs that mentioned Mitt Romney's dog Seamus by name this year. (Romney, you see, drove with the dog in a carrier strapped to his station wagon roof during a family vacation in 1983.)"

The payoffs by Tyson Foods (the $97k in commodity futures to gubernatorial candidate Bill's wife), the missing billing records, the mysterious death of Vincent Foster, the various quasi-rapes, the sale of pardons (e.g. Marc Rich, facilitated by the current AG), sending aircraft carriers through the straights between China and Taiwan to enable Johnny Chung (working from memory on this name) to raise money, $345K via Bernie Schwartz by moving technology transfers to Dept of Commerce from Dept of , , , State? with regard to rocket/satellite technology, White Water, Bill's chief of staff (? name?) going to prison to cover for Hillary at the law firm, then taking $750k yearly from Chinese front in Indonesia (the Riadys), wagging the dog (Yugoslavia? or? I forget) to escape conviction on the impeachment , , ,

Recently MSNBC's Lawrence ODonnell (duck) claimed that Newt Gingrich had far more lasting effect on our political culture than Reagan Clinton or the two Bushes.

He claims that Gingrich was the tax cutter of the century. That Gingrich came up with the phrase that tax hikes will reduce jobs and that that has been the Republican mantra since and this phrase more than anything has affected our politics.

I say that Clintonism has affected our politics far more and insidiously and way to the detriment of our culture our politicals, our supposed media watchdogs, our morals, our ethics.

Since Clinton has dumb downed American politics to such an extent there is simply NO lie that is no biggie, No immoral action that is no biggie,no twisting of the truth to totally absurd levels, that is no biggie, no length to which the libs in the media will go to protect their guy, no bribe that is not biggie, even to the extent that a PResident lied to cover up an embassy attack for fear it would resemble the Terhan attack of 1976 and hurt his election. If hostages were taken.....

Seattle Times, Washington Post: " America in 1917 did not fight on a credit card... President Wilson... sold Liberty Bonds to cover costs. [In 2001 George W.] Bush, by contrast... borrowing to pay for the war helped lead to the current fiscal crisis."

- does anyone realize that selling bonds is the way in which the government takes on debt?------------------------NY Times on Hurricane Sandy: "Crews from as far away as...Quebec have worked feverishly to repair or replace those [utility] poles..."

- As far away as Quebec? ... a Canadian province that is contiguous with New York.

But I really think it unwise politically to assume that many voters for the Dems are just plain ignorant.

I think most know exactly what they are voting for. That is entitlements and make the rich pay more.

I am not so sure Boehner is wrong to cave. No matter what, the Republicans always get the blame for these budget battles. Look at Clinton/Gingrich. Look at Obama/Boehner #1.

As long as the voters perceive other people footing the bill (increase taxes on the rich) they are more than happy to have a deal that does exactly that.

The Republicans do not have the same jorno*list* and talking heads/points (propaganda machine) and the right spokespeaple to do anything about this.

The risk is we do not have a crash and then the Liberals come out with extreme power. The benefit of a crash is that may be the only way to stop the liberal/media/union/university politburo planners agenda.

But I really think it unwise politically to assume that many voters for the Dems are just plain ignorant.

I think most know exactly what they are voting for. That is entitlements and make the rich pay more...

CCP,

I agree with this part. The President received about 51% of the vote. Most are from the core Democratic, partisan constituencies and they are not low information voters. Biased information maybe, but not low information. The story Time tells is how these other people came out to provide the margin of victory, "the people who don’t much care for politics...aren’t political in the cable-TV sense of the word", and put their faith in Barack Obama.

"...the poll questions did not account for Obama’s secret weapon: the people who don’t much care for politics. A sizable chunk of the President’s most ardent backers don’t admire either party yet think Obama is somehow above it all, immune to all the horse trading and favor mongering that politics entails. These voters aren’t political in the cable-TV sense of the word. But in 2012, they stuck by Obama. In the last month of the Obama campaign’s voter registration, 70% of those signed up were women, minorities or people under 30.

The Democrat coalition is complex. The core constituencies include liberal elites, teachers union members, rial lawyers, civil servants and plenty of successful business people who are affluent and well informed, at least in terms of the amount of time spent paying attention to the issues. My point from the Time piece is that the margin of victory came from the turnout of these infrequent, less informed, unlikely voters who came out and put their faith in Pres. Obama.

For all our errors made about the reading of the polls, I remember posting that Obama's lead was most impressive in the group called "unlikely voters".

I honor them here - right now,"for better or for WORSE", as "Person of the Year" - for giving their faith, trust and support, instead of honoring President Obama for receiving it.

David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law On National TV Posted: December 23, 2012 by ShortTimer in Crime, Guns, Media

Meet the Press’s studios are located in Washington DC. This morning on “Meet the Press”, David Gregory decided to wave around a 30-round AR-15 magazine.

From DC’s gun laws:

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”

From Westlaw’s listing of DC’s gun laws:

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness Division I. Government of District. Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety. Subtitle J. Public Safety. Chapter 25. Firearms Control. Full text of all sections at this level Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations. Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter VI. Possession of Ammunition. Current selection§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Penalties:

It is also illegal to possess, sell or transfer any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” A person guilty of this charge can be sentenced to a maximum fine of $1000 and/or up to a year imprisonment. D.C. Criminal Code 7-2506.01.

And from the DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog:

3. Unlawful Possession of Ammunition – As I mentioned above, in the District of Columbia, unless you are a licensed firearms dealer, you can only possess ammunition for the type of firearm that you are lawfully registered to own. Possession of unlawful ammunition is a crime and can result in a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. It is also illegal to own what is considered a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

I chose to highlight these three major gun laws because they are the ones most likely to catch someone off guard that has no idea they are in violation of the Washington, DC gun laws.

No gun, no ammunition, I don't get what his point was in having one in hand. His guest wasn't the least bit interested in that line of questioning and a magazine versus having a rifle or even a sharp knife wasn't the least bit dramatic.

From the thread: "No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm."

Gregory's problem is deeper. To avoid the crime he will have to maintain he committed something worse, journalistic fraud. (Some of us already made that call.) I think he would prefer the $1000 fine, but a year in prison?

I am curious what the real penalty would be for others caught on a DC street, a black man not dressed in a business suit for example, with similar possession? Probation?

With a gun law conviction, would he recuse himself from subsequent, professional journalist discussions about gun control laws?

------Aside from the increase in homicides, the District of Columbia actually has a very low crime rate. - Marion Barry, Natl Press Club, 23 March 1989 http://www.snopes.com/quotes/barry.asp

D.C. Police — NBC requested and was denied permission to use high capacity magazine in news segment

Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 11:23am

1614

As noted in an earlier post, an email has surfaced purporting to be from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department stating that NBC requested permission to use a high capacity ammunication magazine and that the request was denied.

The email first appeared on the AR15 gun forum, and then at the The Patriot Perspective blog which first broke the Gregory story.

The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on “Meet the Press.” MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Customer Service – Metropolitan Police Department”

Fearing the email was a hoax, I was cautious about running the text of the email. But as earlier reported, a confidential source who works for D.C. government verified that the email was in a format used by the MPD:

“… the Metropolitan Police Department email reply you received is genuine. DC Government uses “Intranet Quorum” software designed by Lockheed to manage general inquires. The email address and the subject line of the email you received are consistent with that software.”

Now I have received confirmation that the e-mail is authentic.

(added) For much of the day yesterday and last night I sought confirmation from the D.C. Police. After numerous emails exchanged last night and conversations this morning, I finally was able to receive the authentication needed, as well as confirmation of the request by NBC and denial by the MPD.

I forwarded the text of the email, exactly as it appears above, to Gwendolyn Crump, Director, Office of Communications for the MPD, with the following question:

Can you confirm that is a real email sent from your system. I am informed that the email format is consistent with the Intranet Quorum format you use. Putting aside the substance of the investigation, I just want confirmation that it is a genuine email sent from your system.

I would appreciate your response on that specific question. Thank you.

Ms. Crump responded:

“Yes. I can confirm that what you sent appears to be the IQ system message.”

I further followed up to make sure that the email was an actual email sent by MPD, not just that it “appeared” to be one, and Ms. Crump confirmed:

“Yes, that email was sent from MPD.“

Officer Aziz Alali of the MPD Public Information Office further confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail, and gave me this statement by telephone:

“NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated and I cannot get into any further specifics on this investigation.”

NBC News has not responded to multiple inquiries as to the request and denial, or whether the magazine was real or just a prop. During the segment in question, Gregory stated “here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets.”

If it turns out the magazine was in violation of D.C. law, the fact that NBC News was warned by the D.C. Police not to use the magazine puts a whole new light on the incident, turning it into an intentional violation of the law. While the law does not require intent, the existence of intent could influence a decision whether or not to prosecute.

Update: Thanks to all the blogs and websites who linked here and properly credited us with getting the D.C. Police to confirm this story, including but not limited to, Instapundit, Huffington Post (!), Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Breitbart.com, and more … Newsbusters.

Feds and media jump to David Gregory’s defense as race card goes missingPosted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 8:01am It must be nice to have friends in high places

76 38 Wow, isn’t this convenient.

An unnamed ATF official hopes that David Gregory and NBC News do not get prosecuted for violating D.C.’s clear law prohibiting the possession or transfer of high capacity ammunition magazines because it’s all just a misunderstanding (h/t The Patriot Perspective):

But ABC News has learned from an official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that NBC had reached out to the federal agency on Friday for advice before displaying the weaponry.

According to the ATF official, the agency noted that ATF doesn’t enforce D.C. gun laws, but agreed to put the question to a couple of Washington police officers who’ve worked with the agency in the past.

The D.C. officers advised the ATF spokesman that Gregory could display the magazine, provided it was empty, the source said.

That turned out to be bad advice, as conservative media and gun rights activists were first to note. The ATF official describes this as a “misunderstanding,” and says he hopes DC police will not bring charges.

Seriously, NBC News relied upon what some police officer told ATF which told NBC News? Wouldn’t anyone with half a brain reach out to the D.C. Police directly?

Yes, of course, that’s exactly what NBC News did, it contacted the Metropolitan Police Department directly and was told that it was against the law and they were not permitted to use the magazine on the television show. Yet NBC News did it anyway, and now the defense is that someone told someone who told us it was okay?

That’s no “misunderstanding.” Also, NBC has a legal department, did the show contact that department which would have found the answer pretty easily?

And anyway, the law does not require a knowing violation.

Would ABC News or any of the other media outlets dragged to the story treat Fox News this way? Or a Republican? Or Wayne LaPierre?

The media is circling the wagons around NBC News, as Politico documents, Media disdain for the David Gregory story:

Some political and media types weren’t impressed by headlines this week reporting that D.C. police are investigating the alleged display of a gun magazine on NBC’s Meet the Press. They took to the Internet with their disdain for the story.

Notice another thing missing from the media treatment?

All the usual suspects who play the race and the white privilege cards against Republicans are silent.

December 27th, 2012 - 4:19 pm At Commentary, Peter Wehner explores “The Left’s Epistemological Closure,” beginning with his take on Byron York’s latest column on how the television’s MSM have jettisoned the role as newsreaders to become, as Wehner writes, “fierce advocates for gun control”:

In his column Mr. York quotes Frank Sesno, a former CNN reporter and Washington bureau chief who is now director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, who said there should be a “media agenda” on guns to push the issue until government action becomes a reality. “The media themselves have a huge opportunity and power and responsibility to channel this,” Sesno told CNN’s Howard Kurtz. And the Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg–an NRA critic who wrote an intelligent article on the case for more guns and more gun control–pointed out, ”Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever.”

A few thoughts on all this:

1. The elite media are more open in their advocacy than at any time I can recall. There are probably multiple reasons why, including the fact that Fox News has been so successful in breaking the previous liberal monopoly that existed in journalism. When there was no real counter-weight to ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, et cetera, journalists were content to advance their worldview in more subtle ways–for example, through their story selection rather than out-and-out hortatory. But the “New Media,” which has injected new voices and different points of view into the public debate, seems to have convinced many journalists that something more is necessary. And so increasingly we see supposedly dispassionate anchors on supposedly neutral networks like CNN toss aside any pretense of objectivity. They are as political and dogmatic in their advocacy as the NRA is in its advocacy. It’s just the NRA has been more honest about its goals than progressive journalists.

But gun control is but one advocacy position the MSM have taken in recent years. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Reuters infamously concluded that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom [sic] fighter.” Concurrently, the New York Times‘ Howell Raines — presumably, with Pinch Sulzberger’s full backing — decided that opening up the Augusta National Golf Club to women was a much more important topic than the GWOT in its formative stages. In October of 2004, as the presidential election was entering the final stretch, and with RatherGate then freshly in the media’s collective mind, Mark Halperin, then the ABC News political director, drafted an internal memo that stated both political parties were not equally accountable, as Matt Drudge noted at the time:

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”

But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to “win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.”

“The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done,” Halperin writes.

Halperin’s claim that ABCNEWS will not “reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable” set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have “become quite grave.”

In August, Halperin declared online: “This is now John Kerry’s contest to lose.”

Back in 2007, Editor and Publisher, the house organ of the legacy media, ran a column titled, “Climate Change: Get Over Objectivity, Newspapers.” And in early 2009, Newsweek declared “We Are All Socialists Now” – which likely didn’t come as much of a shock to its then-parent company’s ombudsperson, who admitted immediately after the election that the Washington Post was also deeply in the tank for Mr. Obama.

While grizzled old vets such as Dan Rather and Andrea Mitchell might not ever publicly confess to knowing how to define their ideology, a few more examples such as these just might lead a cynical person to conclude — as difficult and as shocking as it might seem — that the media might just ever-so-slightly lean a miniscule, infinitesimal amount to the left.

There are of course countless more additional examples than our handful above, where the media long ago concluded that simply reporting straight news was much less satisfying than serving the cause of the good and righteous left. (Feel free to explore the topic further in the comments.)

Or to put it another way, replace the word “student” with “viewer” from this quote from William F. Buckley’s 1959 book Up From Liberalism, as posted today by Stacy McCain, and it neatly sums up the MSM’s goals:

In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.

Fortunately, as a new video from Canada’s Sun TV explores, it’s still possible to punch back twice as hard against such tactics. As the Instaprofessor writes, linking to the same column by Byron York that inspired Peter Wehner’s post at Commentary, “Don’t be surprised, journalists, if many Americans view you as the enemy as a result. Don’t blame them. You’ve taken sides. When you act as agents for the apparat, don’t be shocked when people think of you as apparatchiks.”

Update: “Gun Control Debate Exposed The Media’s Bias, David Gregory Exposed Their Hypocrisy.”

Or the reaction of a governor of the opposing party praising the reaction by the president? Make sure to mention that this was done on Fox, despite an attempt to set the opposing party governor for a partisan statement.

by William Bigelow 7 Dec 2012 Remember when Chris Christie was hugging Barack Obama as they posed for photo-ops after Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey? He might have spent his time more profitably by making sure officials in the devastated areas were prepared to assist FEMA workers who were rushed to the scene and then told to go sightseeing for four days. A FEMA worker stated: They told us to hurry, hurry, hurry. We rushed to Fort Dix, only to find out that our liaison didn’t even know we were coming.

He added that when he and his fellow emergency workers arrived at Fort Dix, officials brushed them off:

The regional coordinator even said to us, “I don’t know why you were rushed here because we don’t need you.” They told us to go to the Walmart nearby or to check out the area but told us to stay out of the areas affected by the storm. If our boss back at headquarters had not been alerted and didn’t make a push to get us assignments, the people running the show on the ground level would have just kept us sitting in the barracks.

A Washington administrator admitted in an email:

My people are being told to go sightseeing. They may have a mission in 2-4 days .... I am asking them to reach out to contacts there that may be able to use their expertise ... We will continue to seek these opportunities as otherwise these personnel resources will be wasted ... Please advise way ahead ...

Michael Byrne, a federal coordinating officer for FEMA, protested:

I’m not going to say we couldn’t have done better. I can understand the emotional commitment. They want to jump right in and start with the effort. I feel the same way. The time was used to find the best place for them and for quick-training. There were logistical challenges but we have been fully engaged in the areas since then.

The FEMA worker disagreed:

When there’s disaster, every second counts. That clock starts ticking once the storm makes landfall.

Then he uttered words to make Chris Christie and Barack Obama blanch. He said:

Ask most conservatives and they’ll tell you that NPR is a hopelessly left-wing news organization filled with liberal biases. Ask most liberals and they’ll tell you it’s a down the middle, mainstsream news outlet. Instead of getting into that debate, let’s get into another, more nuanced one. So, consider this statement made by the co-host of NPR’s On the Media:

“If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd.”

Those are the words of Bob Garfield in the aftermath of the conservative “citizen journalist” sting against NPR, which caught on camera a now former fund raising executive smearing the entire Tea Party movement as racist and stupid.

Mr. Garfield was not saying NPR has a liberal bias, just that it’s journalists are “overwhelmingly” liberal. That is a great big problem all by itself. But more on that in a moment. Garfield’s guest, a liberal named Ira Glass, who is host of the NPR show “This American Life” predictably said, NPR is a mainstream news operation and has no liberal bias. End of discussion!

But let’s look it this way: Let’s say, if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, let’s say you’d find an overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing crowd — does anyone at NPR think that would be just fine; that such one-sidedness wouldn’t present journalistic problems; that such a news organization would present the news without filtering it through a conservative lens?

I don’t.

But somehow liberals at NPR think that it doesn’t matter if just about everybody in the newsroom is liberal. After all, the argument goes, they’re professionals. They can keep their biases to themselves. To which I have just two words: Juan. Williams.

In the “overwhelmingly” liberal bubble that is NPR, executives were appalled at Juan Williams comment to Bill O’Reilly that ““When I get on a plane … if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”

This was so bigoted, in their view, that they had to fire Mr. Williams. In a statement explaining why they did it, NPR said: Williams’ words “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

But these same sensitive liberal souls let Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Legal Affairs correspondent, go on a Sunday talk show each week and spout all sorts of liberal nonsense. Who could forget her shot at then Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a comment for which she later apologized. If there was “retributive justice,” in the world, Ms. Totenberg said, Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

That’s one of the many reasons it matters if a newsroom is “overwhelmingly” liberal – or conservative.

Another has to do with what a news organization chooses not to put on the air. It’s about what it doesn’t deem important or interesting enough to share with its audience. Not all bias can be detected by what actually survives the gauntlet and sees the light of day. I speak from first hand knowledge.

In December 2001, my first book came out. It was called Bias and it was about liberal bias in the so-called mainstream media. Terry Gross, who hosts a daily interview program on NPR called Fresh Air, showed no interest in having me on – despite the fact that Bias was number one on the holy grail of liberal booklists, the New York Times best seller list. And that’s perfectly fine. I have no right to be on any program. Terry Gross can pick and choose her guests as she sees fit.

But not long after the book came out she had a liberal professor on her show criticizing it. She never gave me a chance to defend my work. And then a full year after Bias came out, I got a call from NPR telling me that Terry Gross wanted me on Fresh Air. Why now, so long after my book came out? Because a liberal had just published a book condemning Bias, that’s why.

So I was of no interest to Terry Gross until I was in the liberal cross hairs.

I may have no right to be on her show, but she has no right to pretend she’s not part of NPR’s “overwhelmingly” liberal crowd, and one who has a very deep-seated liberal bias.

As for the current debate, about whether federal government money should go to NPR: I’m against it. And not because of liberal bias. If public broadcasting is as good as we’re constantly being told by its adoring and loyal supporters in places like Manhattan and Malibu, then it ought to be good enough to survive on its own, without taxpayer money, no matter how small.

In a 21st century media universe with thousands of radio and television outlets, NPR (and PBS) should find its niche in the marketplace. If it does, that’s fine with me. If it doesn’t, well, somehow I suspect we’ll all survive.

A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.

So what? Neither are the overwhelming majority of his fellow high-capacity-magazine-owning Americans. Yet they’re expected to know, as they drive around visiting friends and family over Christmas, the various and contradictory gun laws in different jurisdictions. Ignorantia juris non excusat is one of the oldest concepts in civilized society: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Back when there was a modest and proportionate number of laws, that was just about doable. But in today’s America there are laws against everything, and any one of us at any time is unknowingly in breach of dozens of them. And in this case NBC were informed by the D.C. police that it would be illegal to show the thing on TV, and they went ahead and did it anyway: You’ll never take me alive, copper! You’ll have to pry my high-capacity magazine from my cold dead fingers! When the D.C. SWAT team, the FBI, and the ATF take out NBC News and the whole building goes up in one almighty fireball, David Gregory will be the crazed loon up on the roof like Jimmy Cagney in White Heat: “Made it, Ma! Top of the world!” At last, some actual must-see TV on that lousy network.

But, even if we’re denied that pleasure, the “dumbest media story of 2012” is actually rather instructive. David Gregory intended to demonstrate what he regards as the absurdity of America’s lax gun laws. Instead, he’s demonstrating the ever greater absurdity of America’s non-lax laws. His investigation, prosecution, and a sentence of 20–30 years with eligibility for parole after ten (assuming Mothers Against High-Capacity Magazines don’t object) would teach a far more useful lesson than whatever he thought he was doing by waving that clip under LaPierre’s nose.

To Howard Kurtz & Co., it’s “obvious” that Gregory didn’t intend to commit a crime. But, in a land choked with laws, “obviousness” is one of the first casualties — and “obviously” innocent citizens have their “obviously” well-intentioned actions criminalized every minute of the day. Not far away from David Gregory, across the Virginia border, eleven-year-old Skylar Capo made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days. For her pains, a federal Fish & Wildlife gauleiter accompanied by state troopers descended on her house, charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species, issued her a $535 fine, and made her cry. Why is it so “obvious” that David Gregory deserves to be treated more leniently than a sixth grader? Because he’s got a TV show and she hasn’t?

Anything involving guns is even less amenable to “obviousness.” A few years ago, Daniel Brown was detained at LAX while connecting to a Minneapolis flight because traces of gunpowder were found on his footwear. His footwear was combat boots. As the name suggests, the combat boots were returning from combat — eight months of it, in Iraq’s bloody and violent al-Anbar province. Above the boots he was wearing the uniform of a staff sergeant in the USMC Reserve Military Police and was accompanied by all 26 members of his unit, also in uniform. Staff Sergeant Brown doesn’t sound like an “obvious” terrorist. But the TSA put him on the no-fly list anyway. If it’s not “obvious” to the government that a serving member of the military has any legitimate reason for being around ammunition, why should it be “obvious” that a TV host has?

Three days after scofflaw Gregory committed his crime, a bail hearing was held in Massachusetts for Andrew Despres, 20, who’s charged with trespassing and possession of ammunition without a firearms license. Mr. Despres was recently expelled from Fitchburg State University and was returning to campus to pick up his stuff. Hence the trespassing charge. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing a “military-style ammunition belt.” Hence, the firearms charge.

His mom told WBZ that her son purchased the belt for $20 from a punk website and had worn it to class every day for two years as a “fashion statement.” He had no gun with which to fire the bullets. Nevertheless, Fitchburg police proudly displayed the $20 punk-website ammo belt as if they’d just raided the Fitchburg mafia’s armory, and an obliging judge ordered Mr. Despres held on $50,000 bail. Why should there be one law for Meet the Press and another for Meet Andrew Despres? Because David Gregory throws better cocktail parties?

The argument for letting him walk rests on his membership of a protected class — the media. Notwithstanding that (per Gallup) 54 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA while only 40 percent have any trust in the media, the latter regard themselves as part of the ruling class. Which makes the rest of you the ruled. Laws are for the little people — and little people need lots of little laws, ensnaring them at every turn.

This is all modern life is. Ernest Hemingway had a six-toed cat. The cat begat. (Eat your heart out, Doctor Seuss.) So descendants of his six-toed cat still live at the Hemingway home in Key West. Tourists visit the property. Thus, the Department of Agriculture is insisting that the six-toed cats are an “animal exhibit” like the tigers at the zoo, and therefore come under federal regulation requiring each to be housed in an individual compound with “elevated resting surfaces,” “electric wire,” and a night watchman. Should David Gregory be treated more leniently than a domestic cat just because when Obama tickles his tummy he licks the president’s hand and purrs contentedly?

There are two possible resolutions: Gregory can call in a favor from some Obama consigliere who’ll lean on the cops to disappear the whole thing. If he does that, he’ll be contributing to the remorseless assault on a bedrock principle of free societies — equality before the law. Laws either apply to all of us or none of us. If they apply only to some, they’re not laws but caprices — and all tyranny is capricious.

Or he can embrace the role in which fate has cast him. Sometimes a society becomes too stupid to survive. Eleven-year-old girls fined for rescuing woodpeckers, serving Marines put on the no-fly list, and fifth-generation family cats being ordered into separate compounds with “electric wire” fencing can all testify to how near that point America is. But nothing “raises awareness” like a celebrity spokesman. Step forward, David Gregory! Dare the prosecutor to go for the death penalty — and let’s make your ammo the non-shot heard round the world!

Or the reaction of a governor of the opposing party praising the reaction by the president? Make sure to mention that this was done on Fox, despite an attempt to set the opposing party governor for a partisan statement.

by William Bigelow 7 Dec 2012 Remember when Chris Christie was hugging Barack Obama as they posed for photo-ops after Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey? He might have spent his time more profitably by making sure officials in the devastated areas were prepared to assist FEMA workers who were rushed to the scene and then told to go sightseeing for four days. A FEMA worker stated: They told us to hurry, hurry, hurry. We rushed to Fort Dix, only to find out that our liaison didn’t even know we were coming.

He added that when he and his fellow emergency workers arrived at Fort Dix, officials brushed them off:

The regional coordinator even said to us, “I don’t know why you were rushed here because we don’t need you.” They told us to go to the Walmart nearby or to check out the area but told us to stay out of the areas affected by the storm. If our boss back at headquarters had not been alerted and didn’t make a push to get us assignments, the people running the show on the ground level would have just kept us sitting in the barracks.

A Washington administrator admitted in an email:

My people are being told to go sightseeing. They may have a mission in 2-4 days .... I am asking them to reach out to contacts there that may be able to use their expertise ... We will continue to seek these opportunities as otherwise these personnel resources will be wasted ... Please advise way ahead ...

Michael Byrne, a federal coordinating officer for FEMA, protested:

I’m not going to say we couldn’t have done better. I can understand the emotional commitment. They want to jump right in and start with the effort. I feel the same way. The time was used to find the best place for them and for quick-training. There were logistical challenges but we have been fully engaged in the areas since then.

The FEMA worker disagreed:

When there’s disaster, every second counts. That clock starts ticking once the storm makes landfall.

Then he uttered words to make Chris Christie and Barack Obama blanch. He said:

Interesting piece. They cite other news magazines still doing well, but print in general is having problems. I don't have to pick up a magazine or newspaper to read news. If it is a day old or a week old it had better be loaded with insights. Newsweek had 70 years to build a better reputation and didn't. George Will is great but not a unique asset of Newsweek or part of a theme in their content. Zakaria, brilliant? Wow! To the extent that Time leans left with mainstream redundancy, Newsweek could have carved out a different slice instead of competing for the same dollar - and losing. The Economist is far more interesting and global. At the least, it is different from the others.

MILLER: Two systems of justice David Gregory walks free while Iraq vet was jailed

It’s been more than a week since police in Washington, D.C., opened an investigation into NBC’s David Gregory’s possession of a “high-capacity magazine” that’s prohibited in the District on on national TV. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier’s spokesman refused Monday to respond to whether Mr. Gregory had even been interviewed yet. This is a rather curious departure for a city that has been ruthless in enforcing this particular firearms statute against law-abiding citizens who made an honest mistake.

In July, The Washington Times highlighted the plight of former Army Spc. Adam Meckler, who was arrested and jailed for having a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition — but no gun — in his backpack in Washington. Mr. Meckler, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, says he had no idea it was illegal to possess unregistered ammunition in the city. He violated the same section of D.C. law as Mr. Gregory allegedly did, and both offenses carry the same maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.

Mr. Meckler was charged with the crime and was forced to accept a plea deal to avoid the cost and time of a protracted legal fight. The indefensible nature of Mr. Meckler’s case led directly to a new law passed by the D.C. Council in December that allows prosecutors to file civil instead of criminal charges, but only if the accused was unaware of the city’s laws.

That exemption probably wouldn’t apply to Mr. Gregory, who held up a 30-round rifle magazine on his show on Dec. 23 to make his point about the need to ban them. NBC asked the police in advance for permission to bring the contraband into Washington for the interview with National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, but it was not granted.

“I unknowingly broke the law,” Mr. Meckler told The Washington Times. “Mr. Gregory knowingly broke the law. While both are seemingly harmless, both acts were deemed illegal under the District’s obscure firearms laws.” Mr. Meckler said he would never have intentionally left the rounds in his bag.

The former Army medic is still upset about being left with a criminal record and being enrolled on the police list of firearms-related criminals. “I think if you had to measure the criminality of the two instances, his should be interpreted as more severe. At the very least, he should be put on probation, pay a fine and be added to the District’s Gun Offender Registry, as I was ordered to do,” Mr. Meckler said.

The administration wasn’t concerned that it had invited a potential gun criminal to the White House Saturday for an exclusive interview with President Obama. The president used this platform to call for enactment of a new ban within a year on what he called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity clips.”

The District came up with its overly restrictive laws in response to the Supreme Court overturning the capital city’s 30-year gun ban. The statutes shouldn’t apply just to regular people but to the rich and powerful as well. The District should either repeal its over-the-top restrictions or send a squad car to take David Gregory into custody.

Trivia: The Dick Harman who bought Newspeak for $1 (!!!) is the May-December husband of now former Congresswoman Jane Harman of the 32d of CA and the CEO/founder of Harman Electronics. Jane was one of my opponents when I ran for the Libertarian Party in 1992. Dick came up after the first debate and introduced himself and rather angrily took exception to my calling her economic policies "economic fascism". I sincerely did my best to explain that my intended meaning was not to impute anti-semitism--he comes from a generation where that was part of the understanding of the term for many and he, like me, is Jewish. In conclusion I sincerely said that he must be very proud of his daughter. With more than a little warmth he informed me that she was his wife.

I would add that Jane "lent" some $900,000 to her campaign-- which was then legally repaid to her by donations after she won to retire her campaign debts. In other words, donors were giving her money that went straight into her own pocket.

Printer-Friendly VersionAl Jazeera is coming to America -- courtesy of former Vice President Al Gore and entrepreneur Joel Hyatt. The Arab network, funded by Qatar, has just bought Current TV -- the low rated liberal cable station Gore and Hyatt founded -- for a reported $500 million. The deal gives the anti-Israeli Arab network access to 40 million homes in the United States.

Beyond bringing anti-Israeli propaganda into these new American outlets, Al Jazeera has a long record as the chosen news outlet for Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. It was through them that Osama bin Laden would regularly post videos attacking the west and calling for renewed acts of terror. Having this network available in the US might also afford terrorist groups a new method of communicating with one another. At the very least, it will help whip up enthusiasm among Islamic viewers in America for jihadist terrorism. Some fear that its message will actually cause an uptick in domestic terrorism.

To its credit, Time Warner Cable announced that it will cancel its contract with Current so it will not have to show Al Jazeera's propaganda on its system. Their action keeps the station off 12.5 million homes. Thank you Time Warner.

Gore, who consistently postured himself as a friend of Israel, shows now how unreliable the Jewish State's "friends" are when the chips -- or the money -- is down. It is estimated that Gore, who owns 20% of Current TV, will get $100 million for his share from the deal. Media reports indicate that the former VP was eager to close the deal before the higher income tax rates he supported kick in on January 1, 2013.

Indeed, it was the height of hypocrisy that Al Gore spoke warmly of Al Jazerra saying its mission was similar to that of Current TV, to give "voice to those who are not typically heard, to speak truth to power, to provide independent and diverse points of view and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."

Among these "diverse" points of view might be terrorists. Fox News reports that "Al-Jazeera has been criticized for having a pro-Islamist bent, and accused of working with members of Al Qaeda." Fox noted that "one of its journalists was arrested in Israel in 2011 on suspicion of being an agent of the Palestinian group Hamas."

Not that Current TV is a world-beater. Its average prime time viewership is about 42,000 households. But, it remains to be seen if the pro-Israel former Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, will continue with the network under the new management. And the Islamist bias of the new network might pose a problem for women's rights advocates such as former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm who also hosts a prime time show on Current TV.

Thanks to "friends" of Israel like Gore and Hyatt, the Islamist movement has a new voice in the US.

Trivia: The Dick Harman who bought Newspeak for $1 (!!!) is the May-December husband of now former Congresswoman Jane Harman of the 32d of CA and the CEO/founder of Harman Electronics. Jane was one of my opponents when I ran for the Libertarian Party in 1992. Dick came up after the first debate and introduced himself and rather angrily took exception to my calling her economic policies "economic fascism". I sincerely did my best to explain that my intended meaning was not to impute anti-semitism--he comes from a generation where that was part of the understanding of the term for many and he, like me, is Jewish. In conclusion I sincerely said that he must be very proud of his daughter. With more than a little warmth he informed me that she was his wife.

I would add that Jane "lent" some $900,000 to her campaign-- which was then legally repaid to her by donations after she won to retire her campaign debts. In other words, donors were giving her money that went straight into her own pocket.

I love the line 'you must be very proud of your daughter' whether you knew it was his wife or not. )

Re-paying after the election also is a way to non-disclose the donors to the voters.

Buying Newsweek for $1 reminds me of my old bragging line of making more money last year than the top 3 airlines combined (even if is only $1 or a small loss).

This could go in cog diss of the left or into the gun rights thread if it was an attempt at a coherent argument but really it is a death by torture threat to gun rights people and Republican leadership sent out via the Des Moines Register.

"• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control."

The Media & Democrats Flexible Definition of “The Rich”by Datechguy | January 3rd, 2013It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is

Remember the media meme that tax increases were necessary to be sure the rich pay their fair share? Well apparently to democrats, the party of the little guy and the media “The Rich” doesn’t include General Electric, Citigroup, Diageo (makers of Puerto Rician Rum) Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, American Wind Energy Association and The Motion Picture Association of America.

Apparently they wanted a big batch of tax credits and favors and paid millions to lobbyists to achieve them, they put these credits into a Senate bill called the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012.

Now as the GOP didn’t support this massive tax giveaway and a House of Representatives with a strong Tea Party presence wasn’t about to pass it. In fact according to the site Govtrack.us…

Status:Introduced Aug 28, 2012Reported by Committee Aug 28, 2012Passed Senate (not yet occurred)Passed House (not yet occurred)Signed by the President (not yet occurred)The committees assigned to this bill sent it to the House or Senate as a whole for consideration on August 28, 2012.Prognosis: 19% chance of being enacted.

Or at least that would have been the odds but according to Tim Carney of the Washington Times:

A Republican Senate aide familiar with the cliff negotiations tells me the White House wanted permanent extensions of a whole slew of corporate tax credits. When Senate Republicans said no, “the White House insisted that the exact language” of the Baucus bill be included in the fiscal cliff deal. “They were absolutely insistent,” another aide tells me. (The White House did not return requests for comment.)

Sure enough, Title II of the fiscal cliff legislation is nearly a word-for-word replication of the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012.

So the Democrats,the protectors of the little guy, the people who were going to make sure that the rich paid their fair share and President Obama their champion managed to do what corporate lobbyists couldn’t add this unpassable bill into the fiscal cliff legislation, passed it in the senate and sent to the house where democrats voted for it en masse and enough establishment Republicans could make sure their corporate friends had their reward.

There was a time when media would have screamed foul, there was a time when such a bill once read and known to the public would not have been possible, but the media has already defined the villain as the GOP and the heroes as the Democrats in general and this President in particular and no amount of truth could change it.

We get the government we deserve, I really thought we deserved better.

Update: The Wall Street Journal adds to the list:

In praising Congress’s huge new tax increase, President Obama said Tuesday that “millionaires and billionaires” will finally “pay their fair share.” That is, unless you are a Nascar track owner, a wind-energy company or the owners of StarKist Tuna, among many others who managed to get their taxes reduced in Congress’s New Year celebration.

and they have a solution for the GOP

Republicans who are looking for a new populist message have one waiting here, and they could start by repudiating the corporate welfare in this New Year disgrace.

Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and David Brooks. Good choices, my list might have been all-Krugman.

They link to a piece at Rolling Stone ridiculing Friedman, the Friedman challenge metaphor contest. I didn't know people ridiculed Friedman. Very funny. "A metaphor is supposed to make things clearer, but it's actually easier to understand Mesopotamian politics than some of these columns." The contest could be to tell which is Friedman's column and which is the parody:

"[Nobody's] willing to fall on the Syrian grenade and midwife a new order. So the fire rages uncontrolled ... and the Shiite-Sunni venom unleashed by the Syrian conflict" strains relations regionwide. Will venom-grenades give way to chainsaw-nails? It's a "breathtaking" performance that really makes your head pound."